Search results

5' existing + 3' new = 8' added time from when play resumes. 94' clock done + 8' clock to go = 102' clock total. The board should have shown 8' added, but officials know (and should helpfully remind managers) that the referee can extend that time for any further delays after the board is shown...

"Common sense" is often completely wrong. Blood = Get off the field. Anything else is against LOTG and against medical recommendation.

But the system as currently used is arbitrarily arbitrary - there's no consistent logic behind the details of decisions that cannot be reviewed and the disallowed outcomes, except that they've been picked as.. the decisions that cannot be reviewed and the outcomes that are disallowed. At the...

I don't know who that is, but being a pundit, was anything different really expected? They're all terrible.

And you're somehow a level 7 referee? I thought the UK system was a bit farcical at times already, but that's fantastic.

This is pretty straightforwardly covered in the LOTG. Have you tried reading them at all?

You can't call them "laws" and then try to describe the system as "a rough framework". Not how it works in practise and not how people actually think of them.

"Little-known" is a nonsense descriptor for the language spoken by close to 30 millions people and the main tongue of two different countries. And if English is meant to be the official language of officials, why was the entire original officiating team Romanian? Why was the entire team on the...

What does the LOTG say? Your answer is easily found - and you should know it by memory if your competitions use temporary dismissal at all.

No correct answers for Question 5?

5/5 and no hesitation on any of them. Thought these were some of the more easy questions so far.

That seems like a reason to actually do something about the offenders and sanction them effectively. It might even have the shocking result of truly cleaning up the game and the culture. Referees should leave when they are abused by the people they're trying to help, and abandoned by those in power.

Say that to some players with a smile, they'll see the joke and be first to offer you a drink afterwards. Say that to other players with less than a grovel, they'll see the thereat and be first to swing at you. Unless you know for sure which one you've got, gambling is probably a bad idea.

Attacker 1 dribbling past halfway, looks for a way to beat Defender 1. Gets the ball through but a tussle means he can't recover it. Attacker 2 though, picks it up in space, runs 40 metres up the field while beating Defenders 2 and 3, gets close enough that the goalkeeper makes a challenge, and...

It's like IFAB heard proverbs about reinventing the wheel, and thought it was advice to be followed..

5/5. Law is law...

You're the one who said "more than a caution" isn't supported by the laws, mate. So, you could either explain how the definition of UEF and associated mandatory dismissal does not support a dismissal for something that used excessive force, or, I don't know, whatever else you think is somehow...

I mean, you've posted directly the definition of UEF and the mandatory dismissal statement, but still don't see how this is more than a caution?

If your competition rules require two coaches, it doesn't matter why they suddenly have just one and can't find a replacement. The same applies where only one coach with similar requirements is involved and they leave. Red card? Partner having a child? Cop called to duty? Find a second or match...

Doesn't make much sense to think of it as a threat, just a statement of fact. Coach 1 has been dismissed and must leave. Coach 2 remains present, but requires another. Either Person 3 is suitably checked and can take over Coach 1's job - game continues - or Person 3 does not exist - game abandoned.